Slashdot Mirror
The Bloodhound Will Stay On the Ground At 1,000 mph
Hugh Pickens writes "BBC reports that engineers designing the world's fastest car, the Bloodhound SSC, built to smash the world land speed record of 763 mph set by the Thrust SuperSonic Car in 1997, believe they have a solution to keep the vehicle flat on the ground at 1,000 mph after initial iterations of the car's aerodynamic shape produced dangerous amounts of lift at the vehicle's rear. John Piper, Bloodhound's technical director, said: 'We've had lift as high as 12 tonnes, and when you consider the car is six-and-a-half tonnes at its heaviest — that amount of lift is enough to make the car fly.' The design effort has been aided by project sponsor Intel, who brought immense computing power to bear on the lift problem. Before Intel's intervention, the design team had worked through 11 different 'architectures' in 18 months. The latest modelling work run on Intel's network investigated 55 configurations in eight weeks. By playing with the position and shape of key elements of the car's rear end, the design team found the best way to manage the shockwave passing around and under the vehicle as it goes supersonic. 'At Mach 1.3, we've close to zero lift, which is where we wanted to be,' says Piper. In late 2011, the Bloodhound, powered by a rocket bolted to a Eurofighter-Typhoon jet engine, will mount an assault on the land speed record, driving across a dried up lakebed known as Hakskeen Pan, in the Northern Cape of South Africa."
Righto, time to ask the serious questions! But what happens when they hit 88 miles per hour?
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Why don't they make it drive on a treadmill?
"Speed, more speed". And then: "You ain't seen nothing yet". Ha !
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Seriously, you rip the wings off of a fighter jet and make it stay on the ground does it become a car? To really be a "car" I would almost argue it needs to be propelled by the wheels.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Who in their right mind would trust an Intel FPU with their life?
Yeah, it may look like a troll, but some of us remember the FDIV bug.
Every billion, or so, calculations might be wrong, but, since you never know WHICH is wrong in an application, it must be assumed that they ALL are.
Aside from the fact that that is a different world record in itself, I would like to point you to TFA which goes to great lengths to explain to complexity of even keeping this thing on the ground, so it's hardly some trivial feat.
I thought we were all waiting for cars that fly. What a terrible waste of money, time and resources!!!
763 mph=1 228 km/h
1000 mph=1609 km/h
Chronologically late.
It seems to me there's something silly about the requirement of a physical connection to the ground. No one would argue that Luke Skywalker's land speeder wasn't a 'land based' vehicle -- and yet (if it existed) it would not qualify for the land-speed record by the rules currently set forth.
Today's hovercraft are not "airships" per se. I would argue that an 'association' to the ground, and a strict limitation in terms of altitude still qualifies as ground based.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
At last!
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
Please do remember that, originally, "car" was any vehicle drawn by animals.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Since most fighter jets, even wingless, would come off the ground at 1000 mph, the answer is yes.
redshift.
Hovercraft, which are neither land nor aircraft, are a 3rd category.
Motor carriage -> motor car -> car.
Horse drawn carriages were never called cars AFAIK. Though oddly railway carriages were.
Then of course there were carts.
The only thing it has in common with a car is that it has wheels and runs on the ground. Given its size and weight it would be more accurate to call it a jet powered truck.
IMO the real land speed record is the wheel driven ones , not the one where you just strap a huge rocket on the back and try and stay on the ground.
Depends on if it's a fixed aero-surface vehicle or not. F1 cars had variable surface aero-parts for one or two years before they were outright banned. The idea was that you could increase the angle of attack to increase downpressure in the corners, but make the car aerodynamically neutral in the straightaways so you're spending more power on thrust rather than dividing it between thrust and downforce. Depending on how the rules for "world's fastest car" are written, how the aero is done determines how impressive this really is. If John Carmack can write a javascript to control thrust for a vertical takeoff rocket (Armadillo Aerospace), you can design a fast car with dynamic aerosurfaces. Building a fixed aero car that's neutral at 1000mph but won't fly into the air and flip when you hit a rock is a lot harder to do. Check out this hella sweet video of a Le Mans car doing exactly that at 220mph: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM4guvo6Ifo
I'll admit this post was an excuse to post that video, but damn if it isn't cool. And that's at a quarter of the speed at which they'll be attempting this. It's not as easy as it looks.
Here's another cool video of the same thing happening. It's relatively common, even though they design against this exact sort of thing from happening. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y65oUlBMSUs
moox. for a new generation.
By your definition someone could break the land speed record by just flying a jet fighter at very low level.
"Today's hovercraft are not "airships" per se"
No , they're hovercrafts, not cars or ships.
Yea, ok, it's sure as HELL offtopic. But ALL TRUE>
Tsutomu never actually got his degree. I have long lost touch with him, so I don't know whether he ever went back to school, but at least for many years he was working as a research physicist with no degree of any sort. Not even a BS. I actually got better grades than he did. The reason Tsutomu didn't do so well is school was that he was spending all his time publishing original research.
Anyway, Tsutomu got hired away from Caltech by Los Alamos National Laboratory. His first project there was a cellular automaton implemented in hardware. It was a massively parallel computer, with each "processor" implementing the operation of a single cell. The first cellular automaton was the well-known Conway's Game of Life, but there are many other kinds. Some cellular automata are designed to solve specific kinds of problems. In Tsutomu's case, he was simulating supersonic fluid flow, for use in designing fighter planes, reentry vehicles and the like.
He described his device as "About as expensive as a Cray, but it solves just that one problem at a thousand times the speed of a Cray".
I don't have a link or a literature reference for you. I don't know whether he published an unclassified paper about it, but if he did it shouldn't be hard to dig up.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
I guess that at 1000mph, anything can fly.
Once again it fails to get off the ground.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Anybody knows the point of this?
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
This just has to be bad news for hitch-hikers.
But isn't the whole point to break a landspeed record? Surely you could even compete if you fitted a wheelchair with rockets? Or how about a submarine?
Oh, that would be one hell of a sight, a submarine going across land at 1000mph.
Yeah I think they should build it as a ground effect aircraft with non-load bearing wheels which reach down to the ground to make it technically a car.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Those were cool videos.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
What they need to build is a car that can do that at the touch of a button and land on all 4 wheels.. kind of like in Speed Racer. Entirely pointless, but it would be fun on a victory lap!
which is totally what she said
that would be one hell of a sight, a submarine going across land at 1000mph.
My vote is on a Blue Whale. Technically it could also count as the driver.
which is totally what she said
I'm sorry, but after changes in the FIA and FIM rules between 1963 - 64, the only thing it needs to qualify as a 'car' for the purpose of making a stab at the absolute land speed record is four wheels or more. Less than four wheels and it's a motorcycle.
There is however a seperate record for wheel driven cars.
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
What they really mean is that the current land speed record is 1227 Km/h and they're trying to reach 1609 Km/h. Now, that's better.
Damn, thats emberassing. got the wrong person...
He did work on cellular automatism for fluid dynamics, but that whole field was just a stopgap that never went anywhere.
The quote you said is pretty telling. 1000 times the speed of a cray isnt really much at all, especially for algorithms poured into custom hardware.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
I'm am suddenly thinking of the Christopher Moore book called Fluke, or I know why the winged whale sings. Seriously, it will make you look at whales differently from now on.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Finally - no more of those long, boring police chase videotapes coming out of L.A.
Just "This is Action 4 News enroute to a reported car chase on the I-TABOOOOOM....what the hell was that?"
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
Does it even matter?
Does it have to be a car to break the land speed record, or will any land vehicle do? If it's the latter, then this thing fits the bill and that's what matters.
I remember watching an F1 race where just before the finish line the guy in second place does a 360deg flip lands on his wheels then rolls across the finish line still in secind place. I love youtube, took me 5 minutes to find it at 2:13 on this compilation.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
That has nothing to do with the fact that this simply isn't a car. It's a rocket/jet with wheels attached. Just because a plane has wheels doesn't make it a car either. Yes, it's very difficult (to understate the issue) to keep any object traveling 1000 mph on the ground, but that doesn't negate the GP's point. It's not a car. It's not designed like a car would be, it's not propelled like a car would be, and it's not driven like a car would be.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
This story made me think of the phrase "not enough of him left to fill a matchbox".
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Its supersonic... so active areo would work different if at all.
>>Depending on how the rules for "world's fastest car" are written, how the aero is done determines how impressive this really is.
I guess. Even the world's fastest car will be doing between 0 and 10MPH in Los Angeles traffic if it can't fly.
I just don't see the point to taking an airplane, putting it on wheels, and spending effort trying to get it not to fly when it's doing 1000MPH.
Why not just get a supersonic fighter and have it tow a little unicycle along the salt flats?
It's not a car. It's not designed like a car would be
And that is precisely why Lamborghini and Ferrari have decided to stay at home for this one, and McLaren also sent in their regrets (they had other plans that day, TBH).
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
As for telling me stuff that ought to have been top secret... you don't know Tsutomu. I wouldn't dream of accusing him of any kind of crime, but he did like to brag about what a cool frood he was.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
There are 3 teams racing to break this record. The Brits, the Aussies and a USA/Canada team.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
I wonder how the conversation went after that race... "well, you completely destroyed the car, and broke every bone in your body, but at least we didn't lose the race!!"
moox. for a new generation.
i would argue that not the design method, but rather the designed purpose would determine what an object is.
This thing is designed to move accross a hard surface supported by wheels, pretty much making it a car (notice i explicitely said wheels to rule out any funnymen with the 'but but hovercraft is a car' argument).
It might not be a car in the traditional ford sense of the word, you wont drive your kids to school in it, and it isnt practical for everyday use, but its purpose is still driving accross terain.
People, what a bunch of bastards
So are "fastest vehicle with an FM radio" and "fastest blue vehicle". However, they aren't interesting records.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
the main advantage of land speed records is that they're not top secret
Beginning this year they have re-introduced limited adjustability of the front wing in F1.
http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2009/0/617.html
I want to shoot the messenger!
I can’t imagine that they didn’t come up with just attaching reverse wings / gigantic spoilers to it.
If they did, then what’s the reason they don’t use them? Sounds extremely obvious to me...
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Second is losing.
The pilot of the thing is Commander Green. Isn't he supposed to be in an old computer game?
no, I don't have a sig
Let me see.. Rocket engine, uplift much higher than weight, 1000mph...
That's a jet plane, not a car. Sure, it got better landing wheels than normal, and a bit special body, but it's still a goddamn jet plane.
If that's a car, we've had flying cars for over 50 years now.
It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
Here's an idea to make it stay on the ground.
If you're splashing money all around, why not mass produce a tube that the car can run in, that can be partially evacuated down to like 20% normal air pressure?
Since the car is using it's own oxidizer, oxygen being provided to the jet engine won't be as much of an issue. And the total lack of drag on the vehicle should atleast double it's speed.
Seriously, you rip the wings off of a fighter jet and make it stay on the ground does it become a car?
Yes. It rolls along on it's wheels and not on wings. It is steered by moving it's (usually front) wheels, not by aerodynamic control surfaces like rudders and ailerons. Indeed, whatever aerodynamic features it has are there primarily to ensure that it stays on the ground, rolling on and being steered by it's wheels.
Thank you, I'll be here all week.
Lambo, Ferrari and McLaren are already slower than the current records. They're not even close. You might as well have thrown in Kia and Tatra in that list.
While I agree with you that it could be argued that this vehicle is indeed a "car", it's a valid point that the unconventional design of the vehicle and its limited purpose make it border on becoming not what the average person would consider to be a car in terms of an automobile.
Keep in mind that streetcars, subway cars, monorail cars, and railroad cars are still "cars" because they also cross terrain, though they require tracks of some sort for their function. (even an elevator car is a "car") This new car requires nearly perfectly flat land, a rocket for propulsion, and very specific aerodynamics to adhere to the ground to reach its top speeds. It likely won't allow for much steering at those speeds, so it will have to mostly go perfectly straight as well.
At what point does such a specialized craft no longer qualify as a "car"? Technically, I could put a large rocket with a small compartment for a human being at the tip of the rocket on an elevated track and still call it a "car". If there were a requirement that it have wheels, I could put wheels on it that touch the ground, but they'd be rather unnecessary. Is there a rule against tracks? Possibly, but if so, it's arbitrary. At some point, someone defined the rules for qualifications for the fastest land speed record of this type, but I would argue that the spirit of the rules has been skirted long ago. This is really a rocket with wheels that has been crafted to hug the ground so as to stay within the letter of the rules of being a land vehicle.
An airplane can't do 1000mph on the ground. No point in towing anything because it won't be on the ground. The force required to keep the car on the ground is the problem. You're talking about something you don't understand and completely dismissing it. Watch Fox News much? Yes, I thought so.
Good point, is a "rocket sled" a car? Train tracks would work, and that's how they used to test some of this stuff.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
If John Carmack can write a javascript
Totally OT, I know, but just FYI, you don't write "a javascript". It's not "java script", it's javascript. After all, I don't "write a python" or "a perl", do I? No. I write a "python script" or a "perl script". So yes, the correct phrasing is "a javascript script", which sounds a little ridiculous, but is nevertheless correct. Or you could use the less clumsy "a javascript program" or "a javascript application". Or you could rephrase it as "If John Carmack can write software to control thrust for a vertical takeoff rocket in javascript". But please, not "a javascript". It just sounds silly.
Only in the 2000-2004 F1 series*. Each race in the series assigns points, so a 2nd place (2pts) is far superior to a DNF (fleet+1, or 9pts). You can recover from a 2nd, or even a 3rd place and still win the series, but after one DNF you're just racing due to your sponsorship contract, hoping another team has more DNF or DNS than you do by the end.
*2000-2004 is when Schumacher wiped the floor with the F1 series, pretty much running uncontested in 1st place with the Ferrari team, basically uncontested for five years.
moox. for a new generation.
Hopefully it includes SYNC or some other means of hands-free cell phone use. You know, for that ever-important phone call. Can't really consider it a car until the driver can yak away while driving...
>>Depending on how the rules for "world's fastest car" are written, how the aero is done determines how impressive this really is.
I guess. Even the world's fastest car will be doing between 0 and 10MPH in Los Angeles traffic if it can't fly.
I just don't see the point to taking an airplane, putting it on wheels, and spending effort trying to get it not to fly when it's doing 1000MPH.
It's every bit as pointless as racewalking, where if both your feet are off the ground at any time you're disqualified.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
I wonder if they will put "How do you like my driving? Dial 1-800-EAT-SHIT" as their bumper sticker.
Let me run down to the ATM Machine and get you some money so you can buy some chill pills :) That's right, I just said ATM Machine, or Automatic Teller Machine Machine. Make sure you xerox the chill pills receipt on the copy machine for my records. Don't cry over language technicalities buddy, here's a kleenex from this tissue box. :)
moox. for a new generation.
Winning is coming first.
Everything else is losing.
It doesn't matter that second place is better than third or last or DNF, you still didn't win. Hence you lost.
[citation needed]
There are issues with the sonic boom taking out wing/tail structures on improperly designed planes, but this "car" has neither. There might be some sort of sonic boom ground effect going on, in which case I'd really be interested to see your source info for some in-depth reading.
moox. for a new generation.
If it has a rocket engine then isn't it a rocket. If so the "land" speed record has a maximum velocity of whatever escape velocity is while still "touching" the ground.
But do they have a working oscillation overthruster...
Some wiki reading on the subject took me to the other two cars that have broken, or been said to have broken the sound barrier. The ThrustSSC which definitely did, and the budweiser rocket which wasn't verified.
I had to laugh at the wiki page though for the budweiser rocket:
No independent authority sanctioned the performance, although United States Air Force radar tracked the vehicle and recorded the speed at 38 mph. This was obviously an error, and is generally considered to represent the movement of a truck in the vicinity.
Some bias against land vehicles there I guess.
I suppose in a black and white world you're right. In competitive races that are part of a series, I'm happy to be in the top third. Very rarely does someone "win" all the races of a series. In these sorts of situations you have a "winner" and someone who comes in "last"; it might sound like little leauge talk, but until the series is over, there aren't really any losers. It's like saying the Yankees "won" the 7th inning, and so the Red Sox "lose" that inning, even though the Red Sox are ahead by 2 points overall (one can dream) and might still win the game.
moox. for a new generation.
Yeah but what is the point of keeping something on the ground when it wants to become airborne? I don't see much practical value in this, unless you can engineer a train to go this fast.
If you come second in every race of the season then it's very likely you will win the championship.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
what's the point of only beating losers?
reindeer is rudundant, too
It shows you where a First in Maths from Oxford can get you. Lawyers get Aston Martins, bankers get Bentleys, mathematicians get the ultimate in sports cars. Who says GB PLC doesn't have its priorities right?
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Intel, Intel, hmm. Why does that remind me of something? Hmm, something with floating point bugs or something, hmm. :-)
Insert
No more than "seahorse" (reindeer != deer). :)
Right, that's why it is a batmobile, not a batcar.
"If you can read this. . . it didn't work".
Don't forget to enter your PIN number so that its NIC card can send it to the bank.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Umm...I've been watching F1 for a lot of years, and I'm pretty sure you never got more points for a DNF than for a second place. DNF = 0 points (except in very unusual circumstances), 2nd = 8 last year or 18 this year.
As for a DNF killing your season, that's crap. Button won the championship last year and got 1 DNF, Hamilton did the same the year before. In 2007 Raikkonen won the championship despite 2 DNFs, likewise Alonso in 2006. For a driver to complete every race in the season is pretty rare, particularly if they're actually competitive (and thus driving hard).
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
It is from Old Norse hreindyri, from hreinn 'reindeer' and dyr 'deer' - hence making reindeer redundant. So, it has nothing to do with reins, even though Santa Claus uses reins on his reindeer!
The design effort has been aided by project sponsor Intel, who brought immense computing power to bear on the lift problem. Before Intel's intervention, the design team had worked through 11 different 'architectures' in 18 months. The latest modelling work run on Intel's network investigated 55 configurations in eight weeks [CC]. By playing with the position and shape of key elements of the car's rear end, the design team found the best way to manage the shockwave passing around and under the vehicle as it goes supersonic.
Why didn't they just consult Sir Mix-A-Lot?
Huh, no kidding... well, gotta love Slashdot, home of the incredibly obscure factoid. :)
Accidentally read your sig as
"And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead roll cage "
Open innovation is only possible through the licensing of third party IP rights,
As long as those rights are licensed through the GPL or a similar license focusing on free-as-in-speech, otherwise innovation is not open, but closed, controlled and restricted which does not lead to significant, rapid innovation.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
And I don't even know why they ripped the wings off! I mean, just bolt them on upside down, if you're having trouble staying on the ground. If the wings provide enough lift to keep the plane in the air while supersonic, they should provide enough downforce mounted upside down to keep it on the ground!
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Of course, and the guy who came first was a member of the same team I believe.
But still, he didn't win the race. And the claim made was "at least we didn't lose the race", which is not "we didn't lose the championship" or "we didn't lose all the points".
What's the point of driving a car around a track really fast and ending up back where you started?
You should see McLaren's new little scoop thing on this years cars[1]. It allows almost exactly what you are describing, effect wise anyways, as of right now it is worth about 5MPH down a straight way. This isn't so much about changing the cars surfaces, but changing the way air flows over them and making them not produce as much downforce but a lot less drag.
[1] http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2010/824/727.html
All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
An' the red uns are always fasta' anyhoo!!! :-D
was to build 6 tonne heatsink on top.
Well...
The Bloodhound will come equipped with one 12 cylinder combustion engine and which will drive the wheels, so indeed it is a car, just with additional power plants in the form of a jet engine and a rocket.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
If our humour is so bad, then why do you keep stealing our comedy shows ?
Hunh, I guess F1 uses a more points = win system rather than less points, thanks for "point"ing that out :) Are you talking about DNFs not being as bad for drivers series or manufacturer's series? How many throwout races do they have in a series?
moox. for a new generation.
The important thing isn't that it's precisely 1609 mph - it's that it's a big round number that's unarguably Really Fraking Fast. Also, just being more than Mach 1 is impressive and probably unreliably dangerous as well. And at that speed there's no point in having a Really Loud Stereo, because you're the only car on your block making sonic booms.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
This guy once tried to convince me that the fastest fixed-wing aircraft was the space shuttle. At that time I'm pretty sure it was the SR-71 Blackbird (and to the best of my knowledge it still is). The reason it's not the space shuttle is that the space shuttle is a SPACE craft, that just happens to have a pair of stubby little wings.
The same goes for this supposed "car". In order for a car to set a land-speed record, it should have to be powered exclusively by its wheels, and the wheels should in turn be required to be powered by a piston engine, not a jet and certainly not a damned rocket. Anything else would be like having the SR-71 Blackbird going full speed with its landing gear grazing a runway, and calling THAT a land speed record.
No, it should have to be an actual car, otherwise it's just meaningless.
I have to say I'm only familiar with F1, so how this differs from (say) Nascar I don't know. But here's how F1 does it:
The top X positions in each race are awarded points (X was 10 last year, it's more now), with the most going to the winner, a few less to 2nd, and so on down the field. This year there are 24 cars in each race, so a bunch get 0 points - DNFs are usually included in that group (although in some rare cases where you were placing high and drop out right near the end of the race you can end up getting points). The drivers' championship is decided by a simple tally of their points over the season, every race counts. This does mean that the championship is often decided before the final race. There are 12 teams this year (always 2 drivers per team) and the team (aka constructors') championship is decided based on the sum of their drivers' scores. Thus in 2009 Jensen Button won the drivers' title with 95 points total, and his team Brawn also won the constructors' title with a combined total of 172 (his 95 plus Barichello's 77). However that's not always how it pans out - in 2008 Lewis Hamilton (of McLaren) got the drivers' title but his team mate didn't do so great, allowing Ferrari to get the team championship.
As for the DNF issue, getting 0 in a race obviously makes it harder to win a title - but in F1 even finishing a race is hard so finishing every race in a season just isn't expected, never mind placing high enough to actually score points. In 2009 no driver scored in every race, no driver even finished every race, and many drivers retired from 3 or 4 (or more). If you look at Button last year, he got 6 wins, 3 podiums (2nd or 3rd place), 1 DNF and a bunch of mid pack finishes. That was enough to win the title.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Whoa, that's heavy dude.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Well, Duh
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
sex and money and stuff
You are raising a fair point. There's a separate record for wheel-driven vehicles, divided into "special" cars and "production" cars, and as you can imagine, they are far slower. But the Land Speed Record (which is the famous one that people tend to remember) just requires a wheeled vehicle that stays on the land. The article is using the term "car" loosely to include "special land vehicles designed to beat the Land Speed Record". :-)
And of course, one of the biggest challenges - as TFA makes clear - actually is keeping the thing on the ground.